The Figma MCP Server allows you to analyze Figma file structures and extract node hierarchies with the following capabilities:
Analyze Figma files: Extract nodes and their hierarchies from a specific Figma file URL
Configurable depth: Limit the node tree depth using the optional depth parameter
REST API support: Access endpoints for health checks (/health), specifications (/openapi.json), and file analysis (/analyze)
MCP Protocol integration: Use the server directly via the Model Context Protocol for integration with large language models (LLMs)
Server information: Retrieve the server's MCP manifest via /mcp.json
Docker support: Deploy in a containerized environment for scalability
Allows analyzing Figma file structures by extracting node hierarchies through the Figma API
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Figma MCP Server analyze the component hierarchy in this Figma file"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for analyzing Figma file structures.
Analyze Figma files to extract node hierarchies
Supports both REST API and MCP protocol
Configurable node tree depth
Related MCP server: Figma MCP
Node.js 16+
npm or yarn
A Figma API key
npm install -g figma-mcp-servergit clone https://github.com/yourusername/mcp-figma.git
cd mcp-figma
npm install
npm run buildCopy the example environment file and add your Figma API key:
cp .env.example .envThen edit the .env file and add your Figma API key:
FIGMA_API_KEY=your_figma_api_key_hereYou can get a Figma API key from your Figma account settings: https://www.figma.com/developers/api#access-tokens
Start the server:
npm startThis will start an Express server on port 3000 (or the port specified in your .env file).
GET /health - Health check endpoint
GET /openapi.json - OpenAPI specification
GET /mcp.json - MCP manifest
POST /analyze - Analyze a Figma file
Example request to the analyze endpoint:
curl -X POST http://localhost:3000/analyze \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"figmaUrl": "https://www.figma.com/file/FILE_ID/PROJECT_NAME?node-id=NODE_ID", "depth": 2}'The server can be used directly by an LLM through the MCP protocol:
figma-mcp-server --cliOr if running from source:
npm run start -- --cliA simple client example is included. To use it:
node client-example.js https://www.figma.com/file/FILE_ID/PROJECT_NAME?node-id=NODE_ID 2The last parameter is the optional depth parameter.
npm run devnpm testA Dockerfile is provided for containerized deployment:
docker build -t figma-mcp-server .
docker run -p 3000:3000 --env-file .env figma-mcp-serverMIT
Analyze a Figma file structure to understand its nodes and hierarchy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| figmaUrl | Yes | The URL of the Figma file to analyze | |
| depth | No | Optional depth parameter to limit the node tree depth |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool analyzes structure but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific formats, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns, how nodes are structured, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely outputs complex hierarchical data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond implying analysis of 'nodes and hierarchy', which relates to the depth parameter. It doesn't provide additional syntax or format details, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('analyze') and resource ('Figma file structure'), specifying the goal is to 'understand its nodes and hierarchy'. It's specific about what the tool does, though without sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed. However, it's slightly vague on the exact output or analysis type beyond 'understand'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or constraints. It mentions analyzing file structure but doesn't specify use cases like design review, extraction, or debugging. With no sibling tools, this is less critical, but still lacks operational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly distinct by default, as there are no other tools to confuse it with.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern (analyze_figma_file), and with only one tool, consistency is inherently perfect. There are no other tools to deviate from this pattern.
A single tool is too few for a server named 'Figma MCP Server,' which suggests a broader domain like Figma file management. This minimal set likely leaves significant gaps in functionality, such as creating, updating, or listing files, making it feel incomplete for the implied scope.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Figma server. It only provides analysis of file structure, missing essential operations like retrieving files, creating or editing designs, managing comments, or accessing other Figma resources, which are core to the domain.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
The Figma MCP server brings Figma design context directly into your AI workflow.
Geometry and CAD file metadata extraction for STL, OBJ, PLY, PCD, LAS/LAZ, glTF/GLB.
smart-data-extractor MCP server on Cloudflare Workers · REST + MCP JSON-RPC · free tier
Structured analysis API and remote MCP tool for text, JSON records and numeric series.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/moonray/mcp-figma'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
